During debates, being a accused of PC'ness is a grave insult - as well as not much more than a rethorical tool that doesn't have much logical credit. But... does it actually mean anything? Is it exclusively left-wing? Are people who throw the PC monniker at others often guilty of PC'ness themselves?

For this particular thread, I decide to throw in my two cents in first: I would define political correctness as changing low-priority viewpoints to conform to a larger ideological group, to be able to advance high-priority viewpoints more easily. Thus, in my view, it is not exclusively a Left-Wing affair, and often something users of the term are guilty of themselves too.

Dicuss away...

I'm proud of being PC.

Macs suck

Calling someone PC is like callying something a Myth - it's a shorthand soundbite/criticism avoiding the actually strengths or weaknesses of the position.

That being said, PC was used mainly in the 1980's in America in the contempt for knee-jerk unthinking liberal opinion. Today, Political Correctness as an accusation is watered down and useless, though PC behavior is still commonplace.

I think you're correct KG, both sides are PC, because it's a universal human failing, not particularly liberal or conservative.

I don't know how you define "political correctness" but it is one of those things that have "gone mad".

health and safety - gone mad
multiculturalism - gone mad
etc

cliches (that's the word)

It's basically changing words/labels/language for inane reasons. For example, have two college football rivalries (Texas-Oklahoma and Florida-Georgia) whose official names were changed. Texas-Oklahoma used to be the Red River Shootout...now it's the Red River Rivalry because some idiots decided "Shootout" encouraged gun violence. Florida-Georgia was "The World's Largest Cocktail Party". Cocktail was changed to Outdoor because some idiot fan drank himself to death. Apparently if you call it Outdoor you'll stop underage drinking and if you say Cocktail you're an ogre who wants children to die.

Politically correct idiocy happens on both sides. I heard something several years ago about a high school in Texas that had a long-standing tradition during homecoming week where students would dress as the opposite sex for one day. That got changed to "Camo Day" because some idiot parent raised a fuss and thought it would turn the males gay (even though it had been done for decades without causing that to happen.) The backlash against the Dixie Chicks is another good example or right wing political correctness.

I consider political correctness an entirely separate entity from things like not using racist and sexist slurs. The latter is just basic decency and common sense.

Politically correct idiocy happens on both sides.

I consider political correctness an entirely separate entity from things like not using racist and sexist slurs. The latter is just basic decency and common sense.

Amen, brother.

OK, it's got bad swearing in it, but whatevs. Don't watch if you don't like swearing.

jGAOCVwLrXo

Being excessively indirect and polite in order to avoid offending a segment of society - a tactic usually employed by politicians seeking (re)election (hence the name).

PCness isn't inherently bad, in some cases I expect public officials to be politically correct - for example, I am quite OK with using "disabled" or "handicapped" for people with physical disabilities instead of "cripples". The problem is that it is often used as a strategy to avoid talking about real problems and to shut up your opponents before they can even present their arguments.

Being excessively indirect and polite in order to avoid offending a segment of society - a tactic usually employed by politicians seeking (re)election (hence the name).

The problem with this definition is that certain politicians actually score points by being direct and aggressive, and offend their electorate when falling within your definition of PC'ness.

The problem with this definition is that certain politicians actually score points by being direct and aggressive, and offend their electorate when falling within your definition of PC'ness.

Obviously. If you target just a small segment of the electorate which might be attracted by "political incorrectness", then it is a viable strategy. Hence why small, fringe parties usually employ it. Politicians who hope to gain support of a wide range of voters across the spectrum tend to be far more PC.

Then it also depends on how homo/heterogeneous your society is. In a very homogeneous country, being unfriendly and harsh with a despised minority can obviously score you points (just ask Adolf). At the opposite extreme is a very heterogeneous society with dozens of disparate minorities, all trained to take offence at the slightest hint of "incorrectness" in some public figure's speech.

Political correctness=Murdered babies=A reigning Satan

Thats pretty much it.

Political correctness is the suppression of free speech by peer presure. Propaganda. It is exactly the same only at a less obvious level that as practiced in North Korea where children literally believe in the supernatural properties of the reigning Kim Ding Dong until and in some cases beyond adulthood.

If you repeat something often enough, omg, it must be true.

Ripping a baby out of its mother's womb IS A ROUTINE MEDICAL PROCEDURE AND STANDARD WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE. WHAT IS WITH THIS WAR ON WOMEN!

Polictical correctness is what the SS guards used to convince themselves the Jews and Gypsies weren't really people.

Political correctness is what America's children will use in the future to convince themselves to terminate the lives of the unproductive elderly to help pay on the deficit so that every citizen can exercise their rights to have a hot tub in their governmented paid for home.

Political correctness led to the Jonestown Massacre.

Political correctness is the known associate of denial and a former passenger on the ocean liner Titanic, and a ship of the line from the time of the Spanish Armada, and a feature of the early twenty one tens, in America, before that country was made bankrupt and destroyed in a nuclear malstrom. Justly destroyed.

Then it also depends on how homo/heterogeneous your society is. In a very homogeneous country, being unfriendly and harsh with a despised minority can obviously score you points (just ask Adolf). At the opposite extreme is a very heterogeneous society with dozens of disparate minorities, all trained to take offence at the slightest hint of "incorrectness" in some public figure's speech.

Homogenity vs. Heterogenity debates are usually pretty irrelevant. Cultural and religious minorities are obviously most easy to target, but once these are out of the picture, it is pretty easy imagine and target groups within an ethnic or religious group itself, once that becomes advantageous to politicians.

Just imagine what will happen once Muslims are out of the picture: Politicians will exagerrate the cultural differences within their own ethnic group, similar to the rivalry between Northern and Southern Italians.

I am quite OK with using "disabled" or "handicapped" for people with physical disabilities instead of "cripples".

I can definitely support that. Calling people "cripples" is morbid and downright depressing. Unless you're Ken Kesey and you have a character you refer to as a "crippled spoonmaker". In that context, you need a particular word for the literary effect you're trying to convey. Kind of like how the n-word is generally considered unacceptable, but that doesn't mean you should go back and change Huck Finn.

Most of the time, it's pure actionism that subscribes to the "language shapes thought" theory, employed by people who are more interested in treating symptoms than causes.

Being excessively correct - for example, I am quite OK with using "disabled" or "handicapped" for people with physical disabilities instead of "cripples". The problem is that it is often used as a strategy to avoid talking about real problems and to shut up your opponents before they can even present their arguments.
Now you're just being disabledist! Us alternatively abled people would rather you call us crips, "crips". Thank you.

Political correctness is the suppression of free speech by peer presure. Propaganda. It is exactly the same only at a less obvious level that as practiced in North Korea where children literally believe in the supernatural properties of the reigning Kim Ding Dong until and in some cases beyond adulthood.
Would it be an example of political correctness if I pointed out that this is kinda racist?

OK, it's got bad swearing in it, but whatevs. Don't watch if you don't like swearing.

jGAOCVwLrXo
+100 points

Most of the time, it's pure actionism that subscribes to the "language shapes thought" theory, employed by people who are more interested in treating symptoms than causes.

But language does shape thinking.

As for the causes, I've addressed that already - in my opinion, PCness becomes a problem when it is employed to inhibit serious public discussion about certain topics. People sometimes think that since we have freedom of speech and whatnot here in the West, we're immune to the self-destructive processes that have affected past societies.

Example: overpopulation caused by unchecked population explosion in the third world is a serious problem that could potentially lead to a worldwide collapse. Unfortunately, it is politically incorrect here in the West to publicly debate coercive measures that would address the problem. Anybody who dared to mention something like that in a high-profile public debate would be shouted down and excluded from the discussion pretty much forever. Therefore we collectively choose to ignore the problem and don't talk about it. Out of sight, out of mind.

The same thing is true in many other cases - problematic behaviour of minorities is the most prominent. This type of self-censorship which we call "political correctness" is potentially very dangerous.

Isn't part of the reason that nobody is talking about the "unchecked population explosion in the third world" because nobody but neo-Malthusian cranks, i.e. nobody who actually works in the relevant fields thinks that it's going to be much of a problem?

Isn't part of the reason that nobody is talking about the "unchecked population explosion in the third world" because nobody but neo-Malthusian cranks, i.e. nobody who actually works in the relevant fields thinks that it's going to be much of a problem?

Thanks for providing a nice demonstration of the "debating strategy" I was talking about.

Efficient debating strategies. Discuss

Example: overpopulation caused by unchecked population explosion in the third world is a serious problem that could potentially lead to a worldwide collapse.

As Traitorfish pointed, Malthusian predictions like these never bore fruit. I would like to add that all major instances of "over-population" were actually the result of the population numbers becoming unsustainable due to a sudden event that it made so (like a war or a bad harvest), not that the population itself was unsustainable; if it was, it wouldn't have grown as high to begin with.

How anyone can refute the above is a mystery to me.

But language does shape thinking.

As for the causes, I've addressed that already - in my opinion, PCness becomes a problem when it is employed to inhibit serious public discussion about certain topics. People sometimes think that since we have freedom of speech and whatnot here in the West, we're immune to the self-destructive processes that have affected past societies.

Example: overpopulation caused by unchecked population explosion in the third world is a serious problem that could potentially lead to a worldwide collapse. Unfortunately, it is politically incorrect here in the West to publicly debate coercive measures that would address the problem. Anybody who dared to mention something like that in a high-profile public debate would be shouted down and excluded from the discussion pretty much forever. Therefore we collectively choose to ignore the problem and don't talk about it. Out of sight, out of mind.

The same thing is true in many other cases - problematic behaviour of minorities is the most prominent. This type of self-censorship which we call "political correctness" is potentially very dangerous.
Well, did political correctness really shape your thoughts, or just the parameters of public debate? Considering that your opinion still is the same, I'd say it's only the latter. "Out of sight, out of mind" is exactly what I was talking about: PC doesn't change the situation, only how the situation is addressed.

That's what I meant with "language shapes thought". Making the N-word* a taboo doesn't make anybody less racist, for example.

* which the forum filter doesn't allow me to spell out because it apparently thinks people are unable to use it for anything else than insulting someone :rolleyes:

Thanks for providing a nice demonstration of the "debating strategy" I was talking about.
I don't think that a rejection of Malthusianism constitutes "political correctness". If anything, the types that you are keen to label "politically correct" share your basic Malthusianism, they just articulate it in ecological rather than imperial terms.

As Traitorfish pointed, Malthusian predictions like these never bore fruit. I would like to add that all major instances of "over-population" were actually the result of the population numbers becoming unsustainable due to a sudden event that it made so (like a war or a bad harvest), not that the population itself was unsustainable; if it was, it wouldn't have grown as high to begin with.
There's also infrastructural factors- the fact that in much of the developing world the problem isn't an inherently unsustainable population, but the difficulty of utilising the abundant natural resources in a stable and efficient manner. Africa could feed itself several times over (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/27/africa-potential-to-feed-world), if only they were given the opportunity.

Let's say I claim that the holocaust never happened. That would surely be politically incorrect and I think we all agree that I lie or that I have some really bad sources of information.
I think that political correctness does almost everytime come down to this. Someone has a stupid opinion and wants to increase his popularity by claiming to be a victim.

Can you elaborate? What's political correctness here? Making false claims like your holocaust denialist or telling him to shut up?

I think by far the largest effect political correctness has had in the US is to drive racism underground. It is simply not acceptable anymore to overtly express it. This has brought about code words and dog whistles to replace being able to do so.

Otherwise, political correctness hasn't really had much effect other than to make people think a bit about being more civil and polite when discussing ethnic groups, handicaps, etc.

The only other effect has been to turn it into a pejorative to try to lend credence to dubious assertions, much like "playing the race card" has become.

Thanks for providing a nice demonstration of the "debating strategy" I was talking about.
So it's excessively polite to call someone a crank? Because I'm pretty sure anything worse and the mods will come down on us.

Can you elaborate? What's political correctness here? Making false claims like your holocaust denialist or telling him to shut up?

I talk about the false claims.

Let's say I claim that the holocaust never happened. That would surely be politically incorrect and I think we all agree that I lie or that I have some really bad sources of information.
I think that political correctness does almost everytime come down to this. Someone has a stupid opinion and wants to increase his popularity by claiming to be a victim.

Somewhat agree. Political Correctness often occurs when someone confuses his opinions/biases with reality. Holocaust deniers are often antisemites. Evolution deniers are often creationists. When you let your personal opinions or prejudices substitute for how you think the world really works, we can label that PC. Though there are other kinds as well.

See "Racist Cake" thread.

I don't know how you define "political correctness" but it is one of those things that have "gone mad".

health and safety - gone mad
multiculturalism - gone mad
etc

cliches (that's the word)

In many cases conservatives use "gone mad" as newspeak for 'actually happening'.
The only way multiculturalism could have not "gone mad" would have been by not actually happening at all.
+100 points
+another 100 pointsExample: overpopulation caused by unchecked population explosion in the third world is a serious problem that could potentially lead to a worldwide collapse. Unfortunately, it is politically incorrect here in the West to publicly debate coercive measures that would address the problem. Anybody who dared to mention something like that in a high-profile public debate would be shouted down and excluded from the discussion pretty much forever. Therefore we collectively choose to ignore the problem and don't talk about it. Out of sight, out of mind.
This is an excellent example.
The problem here is that the premise is utterly flawed (that's the political correct term for "a freaking lie"). For something to be "explosive" the f'' has to be positive...pretty much by definition.
Due to that fault what you wrote acutally distracts from the debate of the issues of population grwoth and shortage of resources and acts as an anchor for people with an alterior motive (like racists) to hijack that debate.
Political correctness is supposed to remedy that by demanding a certain level of precision and reduction of ambiguity.

That's actually something many people don't get about political correctness. It is supposed to foster the usage of more precise terms. Whenever it does the opposite you're very much doing it wrong.
Otherwise, political correctness hasn't really had much effect other than to make people think a bit about being more civil and polite when discussing ethnic groups, handicaps, etc.

Well you can't really claim anymore that writing checks to boarding schools, nannies, tutors etc. is very much not the same damn thing as handing out fries 50 hours a week.

That is political correctness gone mad.

and a feature of the early twenty one tens, in America, before that country was made bankrupt and destroyed in a nuclear malstrom. Justly destroyed.

Hah!

I have soda in my nose now!

<3 you MisterCooper!

So, is your Christians-only Republic going to be all post-apocalyptic? Will the Radscorpions be a big problem?

Well you can't really claim anymore that writing checks to boarding schools, nannies, tutors etc. is very much not the same damn thing as handing out fries 50 hours a week.

That is political correctness gone mad.
I'm happy you ended your post with that remark, because otherwise it really seemed to be implying that political correctness is only a weapon employed by the left with the good intention of elevating the debate. It isn't. The current "don't you dare to even discuss motherhood" shitstorm in the US proves how the taboos associated with political correctness prevent actual debate.

I havent read all the responses here, mainly because I think most ppl in this section are a tad bonkers

But one example of what might be called political correctness I observed in the Guardian newspaper in the UK recently related to the recent shooting of Jewish children in France

Before the identity of the killer was known the far right were blamed and various articles in the paper basically blamed Sarkozy, however once it came out that the killer was an extremeist Islamist, no discussion was made about those who allow for such people to feed on the islamist anti-semitic doctrines

Is that down to political correctness, or simply the fact that the last attack of its kind in Europe was undertaken by a far-rightist? It doesn't seem entirely obvious that it would be one any more than the other.

What would have been nice in the guardian though would have been an analysis of the insideous anti-semitism that lurks deeply within islamist groups and those that enable and feed this anti-semitism (in much the same way as they do with far right groups), but you couldn't imagine the guardian doing such because of its inate political correctness and the likelyhood that on some occasions it is they (the Guardian) that are part of the enablers.

Or maybe because it's a newspaper, not a journal of political science?

I dont think it is fair to call the Guardian a newspaper, it is more a propoganda rag

Well, I don't think it's fair to use the term "propaganda" like that. The word has done nothing to hurt you, and to see it so abused like that is nothing short of intolerable.

That's what I meant with "language shapes thought". Making the N-word* a taboo doesn't make anybody less racist, for example.

I think it does. You stop using negative words to dehumanize people and those people become one stop closer to you and therefore more human in your eyes. I think it helps future generations be less racist in that regard--though has the negative effect of making future generations less aware of their own racism.

I just think people are a lot more dehumanized by actions than by words.

Of course I overstated a little: I see the reason for the taboo, since it's just not a mean word, but a word that's associated with a history of dehumanizing actions. I'm just saying that people often pretend that if you erase a symptom of racism, you stop its causes.

Convince enough people that a word should be taboo, and all they'll do is find a different word.

Yes, but those people are bigots. They don't- or I would like to hope that they don't- represent the majority of humanity.

I have spied a confederate army cap for sale. £9.99 - so maybe not a real one.

I really need a hat - to protect my bonce from the heavy downpours we keep having.

May I have this one, yet remain PC?

Do I care? I want it anyway.

(I really don't like those baseball caps that you wear backwards - too much plastic about them.)

I really wish the Left would get around to re-appropriating "Politically Incorrect."

Aye, same.

Just minutes ago on another forum we are arguing whether or not "producers" are musicians. Producers in this context are people who write electronic music tracks on computers, generally composing entirely original work from the melodies and rhythms to the actual instrument design itself.

I played semi-devil's advocate and argued a couple of my music prof's stance, which is that you are being a musician when you are interacting with music, regardless of making, playing, listening, etc.

The response post accused my professors of trying to be "politically correct". Someone please explain that to me.

The evolution of "politically correct" seems to have been from "going to absurd lengths not to offend people" to "going out of your way not to offend people" to, in the last little while, "not offending people". I get the impression that your debating chum is using the latter definition